G.R. No. 234519 - People vs. Juare y Elisan

Juanito Talidano (petitioner) was employed as a second marine officer by Falcon Maritime & Allied Services, Inc. (private respondent).
He was assigned to M/V Phoenix Seven, a vessel owned and operated by Hansu Corporation (Hansu), Korea-based.
His one-year employment contract commenced on October 15, 1996, with a monthly wage of $900, fixed overtime pay of $270, and leave pay of $75.

Petitioner alleged discrimination and maltreatment by the Korean chief officer towards Filipino crew members.
Petitioner sent a letter-complaint to the International Transport Federation (ITF) in London, allegedly causing resentment from the chief officer.
Petitioner was dismissed on January 21, 1997, and filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on October 27, 1999.

Private respondent argued that petitioner voluntarily disembarked after multiple warnings for incompetence, insubordination, disrespect, and insulting superiors.
Cited incident of incompetence: vessel deviated route at Osaka Port, Japan, due to petitioner’s absence during watch duty.
Presented a fax message reporting the deviation and a master’s crew discharge report dated two days after the incident.
Argued that the complaint was filed beyond the one-year prescriptive period under Revised POEA Memorandum Circular No. 55, series of 1996.

Labor Arbiter dismissed petitioner’s complaint on November 5, 2001, ruling dismissal valid due to gross neglect of duty based on the fax messages.
NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling, declared dismissal illegal, ordered payment of three months’ salary to petitioner, and emphasized private respondent’s failure to present the ship’s logbook and comply with due process.
NLRC denied private respondent’s motion for reconsideration, upholding its ruling and rejecting prescription defense.

Private respondent filed a certiorari petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 73521) which was dismissed on technical grounds related to procedural defects (verification, service, explanation for mail service).
A second petition (CA G.R. SP No. 73790) was filed by private respondent, which the Court of Appeals entertained.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the one-year prescription period does not apply to petitioner’s contract (entered before January 1, 1997), thus the complaint was timely.
The Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, finding petitioner’s dismissal valid based on the fax messages as res gestae despite the absence of the logbook.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals was denied.

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals.
Petitioner argued the second petition was improper due to forum shopping as the first petition had a final entry of judgment.
Petitioner also challenges the sufficiency and admissibility of the fax messages, the failure to present the logbook, and claims the dismissal was due to his protected complaint to the ITF.
Private respondent defended the procedural propriety of their second petition, the validity of the fax messages as res gestae, and denied dismissal was retaliatory. It also claimed petitioner voluntarily sought repatriation.

Whether the filing of the second petition for certiorari by private respondent constitutes forum shopping.
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in accepting and ruling on the second petition for certiorari.
Whether petitioner’s dismissal for alleged neglect of duty, supported mainly by fax messages, was valid.
Whether the fax messages qualify as part of the res gestae and have probative value.
Whether private respondent complied with procedural due process in terminating petitioner’s employment.
Whether the claim for illegal dismissal was barred by prescription under POEA Memorandum Circular No. 55, series of 1996.